Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Random Number Generator- Collective Conscious

Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 11:49:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The term "collective consciousness" was first developed by Jung, essentially meaning that we all have a "collective" database within out subconscious mind.

Well the Global Consiousness Project set out to proove this theory, and to prove that we all have some form of "psychic" power resting in ourselves.

http://noosphere.princeton.edu...

The general idea is this. A random number generator is constantly working, producing random numbers (based off 0-1 patterns.) Supposedly, when someone is near the random number generator, the results deviate from normal.

So they decided to set up these generators around the world, and surprisingly, when important events happen, the numbers deviate from expected.

One striking example is the day of the world trade center attacks. The numbers were already deviating from normal 5 hours BEFORE the first plane hit. Then it spiked around 9 am.

heres the analysis/graph for 9/11:
http://noosphere.princeton.edu...

What do you all make of this? does it prove some sort of collective conscious and slight psychic powers emanating through us which shifts these generators? Or is there another explanation for these random numbers deviating from expectancy?

I'm not a math person so what exactly do the numbers in the graphs represent?
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 12:33:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I also say its likely that the numbers deviate even in random times as well. I didn't look it over in depth though, because I don't feel like reading.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 1:07:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 12:31:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I say its either coincidence or falsified data.

so because it's results point towards psychic abilities, or our subconscious ability to affect the world around us, you assume that the data is falsified?

I'm not sure what the results look like on any old normal day, if those are what they are comparing the events to or not for an "expected" data. Thats why i was asking if anyone who is good with looking at data could explain further what is going on.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 1:07:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I read about this, or a related experiment in fortean times many, many years ago. I was only wondering the other day what had come of it.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 2:03:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 1:07:49 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I read about this, or a related experiment in fortean times many, many years ago. I was only wondering the other day what had come of it.

ahh, of course. you must be psychic...... :D
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 2:30:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
As more and more serious scientific research and experiments are done towards certain currently unaccepted concepts, the more the scientific community will have the data they need to start the paradigm shift.

Yes, there is a collective consciousness. Though you will hear people with a certain bias against such concepts say that it is all nonsense or a hoax. That's all they ever have to say when evidence in support of such things are presented. In the end, the joke will be on them and they will have to swallow their pride in acceptance.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 5:31:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 11:49:08 AM, Lickdafoot wrote:
The term "collective consciousness" was first developed by Jung, essentially meaning that we all have a "collective" database within out subconscious mind.

Well the Global Consiousness Project set out to proove this theory, and to prove that we all have some form of "psychic" power resting in ourselves.

http://noosphere.princeton.edu...

The general idea is this. A random number generator is constantly working, producing random numbers (based off 0-1 patterns.) Supposedly, when someone is near the random number generator, the results deviate from normal.

So they decided to set up these generators around the world, and surprisingly, when important events happen, the numbers deviate from expected.

One striking example is the day of the world trade center attacks. The numbers were already deviating from normal 5 hours BEFORE the first plane hit. Then it spiked around 9 am.

heres the analysis/graph for 9/11:
http://noosphere.princeton.edu...

What do you all make of this? does it prove some sort of collective conscious and slight psychic powers emanating through us which shifts these generators? Or is there another explanation for these random numbers deviating from expectancy?

I'm not a math person so what exactly do the numbers in the graphs represent?

I've been waiting for someone to pull out the ol' P.E.A.R.

The org you are citing is part of Princeton's "PEAR" program (http://www.princeton.edu...)

Take a look at noetics to get a general feel for what's being presented: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here's the problem with PEAR:

It sounds really cool and fancy till you do a meta-analysis. For instance.

"In 1987, Dean Radin and Nelson did a meta-analysis of all RNG experiments done between 1959 and 1987 and found that they produced odds against chance beyond a trillion to one (Radin 1997: 140). This sounds impressive, but as Radin says "in terms of a 50% hit rate, the overall experimental effect, calculated per study, was about 51 percent, where 50 percent would be expected by chance" [emphasis added] (141). A couple of sentences later, Radin gives a more precise rendering of "about 51 percent" by noting that the overall effect was "just under 51 percent.""

http://skepdic.com...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 5:33:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 11:49:08 AM, Lickdafoot wrote:
The term "collective consciousness" was first developed by Jung, essentially meaning that we all have a "collective" database within out subconscious mind.

Well the Global Consiousness Project set out to proove this theory, and to prove that we all have some form of "psychic" power resting in ourselves.

http://noosphere.princeton.edu...

The general idea is this. A random number generator is constantly working, producing random numbers (based off 0-1 patterns.) Supposedly, when someone is near the random number generator, the results deviate from normal.

So they decided to set up these generators around the world, and surprisingly, when important events happen, the numbers deviate from expected.

One striking example is the day of the world trade center attacks. The numbers were already deviating from normal 5 hours BEFORE the first plane hit. Then it spiked around 9 am.

heres the analysis/graph for 9/11:
http://noosphere.princeton.edu...

What do you all make of this? does it prove some sort of collective conscious and slight psychic powers emanating through us which shifts these generators? Or is there another explanation for these random numbers deviating from expectancy?

I'm not a math person so what exactly do the numbers in the graphs represent?

Also, I don't think Jung's collective consciousness is the same thing as what noetics talks about Jung's collective concsious, IIRC, had more to do with each person's memory/understanding of the world in a way that it universal to all humans (for instance, the "collective memory" contains stories about characters with different universal archetypes).
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 5:35:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 2:30:31 PM, Tiel wrote:
As more and more serious scientific research and experiments are done towards certain currently unaccepted concepts, the more the scientific community will have the data they need to start the paradigm shift.

Yes, there is a collective consciousness. Though you will hear people with a certain bias against such concepts say that it is all nonsense or a hoax. That's all they ever have to say when evidence in support of such things are presented. In the end, the joke will be on them and they will have to swallow their pride in acceptance.

How is it that you know there is a collective conscious, thus overthrowing the current scientific establishment, yet you refuse to say with any gumption that aliens interfered with human evolution?

You pick your battles oddly.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 5:38:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
And before anyone else tries posting from the Noetics, know that we're talking about people who claim that you can hook someone up to yogurt filled with bacteria, and when you think happy thoughts the bacteria will react.

http://whatwouldtotowatch.com...
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 7:29:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 5:35:09 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/23/2011 2:30:31 PM, Tiel wrote:
As more and more serious scientific research and experiments are done towards certain currently unaccepted concepts, the more the scientific community will have the data they need to start the paradigm shift.

Yes, there is a collective consciousness. Though you will hear people with a certain bias against such concepts say that it is all nonsense or a hoax. That's all they ever have to say when evidence in support of such things are presented. In the end, the joke will be on them and they will have to swallow their pride in acceptance.

How is it that you know there is a collective conscious, thus overthrowing the current scientific establishment, yet you refuse to say with any gumption that aliens interfered with human evolution?

You pick your battles oddly.

Everyone knows what they believe. What they believe is true for them. That's it.

Funny how you think that the current scientific establishment is worth so much. It's an issue of overthrowing anything, it's an issue of believing something to be true which flies in the face of the scientific mob.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 7:30:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 5:38:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
And before anyone else tries posting from the Noetics, know that we're talking about people who claim that you can hook someone up to yogurt filled with bacteria, and when you think happy thoughts the bacteria will react.

http://whatwouldtotowatch.com...

I find it interesting that you bash any references that oppose your views. You think far too highly of yourself.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 7:38:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 7:29:09 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/23/2011 5:35:09 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/23/2011 2:30:31 PM, Tiel wrote:
As more and more serious scientific research and experiments are done towards certain currently unaccepted concepts, the more the scientific community will have the data they need to start the paradigm shift.

Yes, there is a collective consciousness. Though you will hear people with a certain bias against such concepts say that it is all nonsense or a hoax. That's all they ever have to say when evidence in support of such things are presented. In the end, the joke will be on them and they will have to swallow their pride in acceptance.

How is it that you know there is a collective conscious, thus overthrowing the current scientific establishment, yet you refuse to say with any gumption that aliens interfered with human evolution?

You pick your battles oddly.

Everyone knows what they believe. What they believe is true for them. That's it.

Funny how you think that the current scientific establishment is worth so much. It's an issue of overthrowing anything, it's an issue of believing something to be true which flies in the face of the scientific mob.

I think science is worth something. The establishment is the most current incarnation of using science. The establishment, like all human-operated bureacracies, has a "stickiness" which leads to punctuated changes in perspective.

When you get down to an actually detailed level, everything in science, from evolutionary theory to the big bang, is up for debate (see my thread on Gould v. Dawkins).

I am also one of the first to change my mind when faced with overwhelming evidence. If you compared my stance on evolutionary theory over the past five years, you'd think different people were involved.

I am also quite familiar with the limits of science as it applies to epistemology.

You, on the other hand, seem to have no methodology past "what looks good" when it comes to your beliefs. You cite a book saying humans evolved 280 million years ago, then whenever presented with contrary evidence devolve to "oh, I don't know what happened and nobody can."

You are the close-minded one. Whenever your worldview is challenged, you say you refuse anything that "can't be proven as a fact."

That is as close-minded as you get; asking for theories to become facts before you consider them (not to mention it is IMPOSSIBLE).

You have stated on multiple occasions your views on science are unfalsifiable (there is no information you could receive which would falsify your views), also a sign of close-mindedness.

Without question, you talk the most about being "open-minded" while in reality being perhaps one of the most close-minded people on the site.

You hide this close-mindedness by retreating in epistemic limbo whenever a ridiculous position of yours (like that theories can become laws) is challenged.

For instance, I can guarantee your response to this post will involve you claiming that theories shouldn't be believed if they can't be "proven" and shown as "facts."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 7:40:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 7:30:09 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/23/2011 5:38:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
And before anyone else tries posting from the Noetics, know that we're talking about people who claim that you can hook someone up to yogurt filled with bacteria, and when you think happy thoughts the bacteria will react.

http://whatwouldtotowatch.com...

I find it interesting that you bash any references that oppose your views. You think far too highly of yourself.

Oh, and FYI, I bash those people BECAUSE I've researched them.

I read PEAR's articles with interest. I was thoroughly curious as to whether they were right.

I read the meta-analyses, and it turns out their effects were smoke and mirrors.

You are the one who bashes articles and views you not only have never read but do not comprehend (ex. genetic evidence for common descent between humans and chimps).
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 2:27:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 7:38:13 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/23/2011 7:29:09 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/23/2011 5:35:09 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/23/2011 2:30:31 PM, Tiel wrote:
As more and more serious scientific research and experiments are done towards certain currently unaccepted concepts, the more the scientific community will have the data they need to start the paradigm shift.

Yes, there is a collective consciousness. Though you will hear people with a certain bias against such concepts say that it is all nonsense or a hoax. That's all they ever have to say when evidence in support of such things are presented. In the end, the joke will be on them and they will have to swallow their pride in acceptance.

How is it that you know there is a collective conscious, thus overthrowing the current scientific establishment, yet you refuse to say with any gumption that aliens interfered with human evolution?

You pick your battles oddly.

Everyone knows what they believe. What they believe is true for them. That's it.

Funny how you think that the current scientific establishment is worth so much. It's an issue of overthrowing anything, it's an issue of believing something to be true which flies in the face of the scientific mob.

I think science is worth something. The establishment is the most current incarnation of using science. The establishment, like all human-operated bureacracies, has a "stickiness" which leads to punctuated changes in perspective.

When you get down to an actually detailed level, everything in science, from evolutionary theory to the big bang, is up for debate (see my thread on Gould v. Dawkins).

I am also one of the first to change my mind when faced with overwhelming evidence. If you compared my stance on evolutionary theory over the past five years, you'd think different people were involved.

I am also quite familiar with the limits of science as it applies to epistemology.

You, on the other hand, seem to have no methodology past "what looks good" when it comes to your beliefs. You cite a book saying humans evolved 280 million years ago, then whenever presented with contrary evidence devolve to "oh, I don't know what happened and nobody can."

You are the close-minded one. Whenever your worldview is challenged, you say you refuse anything that "can't be proven as a fact."

That is as close-minded as you get; asking for theories to become facts before you consider them (not to mention it is IMPOSSIBLE).

You have stated on multiple occasions your views on science are unfalsifiable (there is no information you could receive which would falsify your views), also a sign of close-mindedness.

Without question, you talk the most about being "open-minded" while in reality being perhaps one of the most close-minded people on the site.

You hide this close-mindedness by retreating in epistemic limbo whenever a ridiculous position of yours (like that theories can become laws) is challenged.

For instance, I can guarantee your response to this post will involve you claiming that theories shouldn't be believed if they can't be "proven" and shown as "facts."

Actually. it's the exact opposite of closed minded. Fail again monkeyboy.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 2:36:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 7:40:19 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/23/2011 7:30:09 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/23/2011 5:38:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
And before anyone else tries posting from the Noetics, know that we're talking about people who claim that you can hook someone up to yogurt filled with bacteria, and when you think happy thoughts the bacteria will react.

http://whatwouldtotowatch.com...

I find it interesting that you bash any references that oppose your views. You think far too highly of yourself.

Oh, and FYI, I bash those people BECAUSE I've researched them.

I read PEAR's articles with interest. I was thoroughly curious as to whether they were right.

I read the meta-analyses, and it turns out their effects were smoke and mirrors.

You are the one who bashes articles and views you not only have never read but do not comprehend (ex. genetic evidence for common descent between humans and chimps).

No, you bash those people because they hold evidence that contradicts what you want to believe. You obviously haven't researched thoroughly enough. You perspective is biased and you live a self fulfilling prophecy of bias belief reality construction. It's not smoke and mirrors. Results on humans effecting random generators have been documented and recorded for years. You fail to accept it, because you do not want to accept it. Your obsession with humans coming from chimps however, that's a different story. It is not a fact. There is NOT overwhelming evidence to prove it true. You just pluck what evidence you can and accept it because you want to. You will have a rude awakening one day. The only one with a closed mind between the two of us, is you monkeyboy.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 2:38:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Oh wow, haven't heard about these "Noetic Science" guys for over a year now. Got into a stupid debate with someone about it a while back.

Pseudo-science, the lot of it.

Collective consciousness exists though. It's called culture.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 6:23:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 2:36:14 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/23/2011 7:40:19 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/23/2011 7:30:09 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/23/2011 5:38:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
And before anyone else tries posting from the Noetics, know that we're talking about people who claim that you can hook someone up to yogurt filled with bacteria, and when you think happy thoughts the bacteria will react.

http://whatwouldtotowatch.com...

I find it interesting that you bash any references that oppose your views. You think far too highly of yourself.

Oh, and FYI, I bash those people BECAUSE I've researched them.

I read PEAR's articles with interest. I was thoroughly curious as to whether they were right.

I read the meta-analyses, and it turns out their effects were smoke and mirrors.

You are the one who bashes articles and views you not only have never read but do not comprehend (ex. genetic evidence for common descent between humans and chimps).

No, you bash those people because they hold evidence that contradicts what you want to believe. You obviously haven't researched thoroughly enough. You perspective is biased and you live a self fulfilling prophecy of bias belief reality construction. It's not smoke and mirrors. Results on humans effecting random generators have been documented and recorded for years. You fail to accept it, because you do not want to accept it. Your obsession with humans coming from chimps however, that's a different story. It is not a fact. There is NOT overwhelming evidence to prove it true. You just pluck what evidence you can and accept it because you want to. You will have a rude awakening one day. The only one with a closed mind between the two of us, is you monkeyboy.

So you still think theories can become facts?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 6:25:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 2:36:14 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/23/2011 7:40:19 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/23/2011 7:30:09 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/23/2011 5:38:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
And before anyone else tries posting from the Noetics, know that we're talking about people who claim that you can hook someone up to yogurt filled with bacteria, and when you think happy thoughts the bacteria will react.

http://whatwouldtotowatch.com...

I find it interesting that you bash any references that oppose your views. You think far too highly of yourself.

Oh, and FYI, I bash those people BECAUSE I've researched them.

I read PEAR's articles with interest. I was thoroughly curious as to whether they were right.

I read the meta-analyses, and it turns out their effects were smoke and mirrors.

You are the one who bashes articles and views you not only have never read but do not comprehend (ex. genetic evidence for common descent between humans and chimps).

No, you bash those people because they hold evidence that contradicts what you want to believe. You obviously haven't researched thoroughly enough. You perspective is biased and you live a self fulfilling prophecy of bias belief reality construction. It's not smoke and mirrors. Results on humans effecting random generators have been documented and recorded for years. You fail to accept it, because you do not want to accept it. Your obsession with humans coming from chimps however, that's a different story. It is not a fact. There is NOT overwhelming evidence to prove it true. You just pluck what evidence you can and accept it because you want to. You will have a rude awakening one day. The only one with a closed mind between the two of us, is you monkeyboy.

I used to be religious and believed in that kind of "mind over matter" stuff. So no, I'm not coming from a close-minded perspective. I heard of PEAR because I was trying to defend random number generators.

You, on the other hand, put forward Random Number Generators and you don't even KNOW the PEAR group, you just cite their 501 (c) 3.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 7:15:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I had watched the ESP episode with Morgan freeman through the wormhole.
They had actually cited as proof of a collective conscious the PEAR research right before 911 and through it. There was a huge spike.
I myself am a mathematician and a Physics Major.

The episode did not cite the process that they used to arrive at the spike. I found that incredibly suspicious.

I do not doubt that magnetic fields could transfer electrical impulses from person to person but actual data or useable information from being to being would be incredibly unlikely.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 7:23:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 7:15:59 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I had watched the ESP episode with Morgan freeman through the wormhole.
They had actually cited as proof of a collective conscious the PEAR research right before 911 and through it. There was a huge spike.
I myself am a mathematician and a Physics Major.

The episode did not cite the process that they used to arrive at the spike. I found that incredibly suspicious.

I do not doubt that magnetic fields could transfer electrical impulses from person to person but actual data or useable information from being to being would be incredibly unlikely.

Check this out:

http://www.tricksterbook.com...
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 7:25:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I want to clarify the last sentence. I believe that we could send information and then transfer it over a magnetic field to be received by another person. We could do this through some mechanized process like signals over the phone etc.

We are a long way from understanding our brains enough to accomplish such a task but to state that somehow it naturally happened where by shear chance everyone is inherently "tapped" into this information exchange between all humanity is mathematically near impossible.
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 10:41:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 5:31:39 PM, Wnope wrote:
I've been waiting for someone to pull out the ol' P.E.A.R.

The org you are citing is part of Princeton's "PEAR" program (http://www.princeton.edu...)

Take a look at noetics to get a general feel for what's being presented: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here's the problem with PEAR:

It sounds really cool and fancy till you do a meta-analysis. For instance.

"In 1987, Dean Radin and Nelson did a meta-analysis of all RNG experiments done between 1959 and 1987 and found that they produced odds against chance beyond a trillion to one (Radin 1997: 140). This sounds impressive, but as Radin says "in terms of a 50% hit rate, the overall experimental effect, calculated per study, was about 51 percent, where 50 percent would be expected by chance" [emphasis added] (141). A couple of sentences later, Radin gives a more precise rendering of "about 51 percent" by noting that the overall effect was "just under 51 percent.""

http://skepdic.com...

Hi Wnope, your posts in this thread seem rational and perceptive. i haven't finished looking through the links you provided, but it seems as though there is really only a change of about .1 percent in the experiments (1 number off in 1,000 isn't much of a change when the machine is alrea producing a 51% chance rate.) i will have to look some more into how they went through the process. i assume the machine would be a big part of affecting the experiment (machines are only a product of our creation. they are limited to the structures that our minds set on them.) So it seems as though this was something made out to be more than it was. but i'll have to go through it more to fully understand.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 10:44:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 7:15:59 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I had watched the ESP episode with Morgan freeman through the wormhole.
They had actually cited as proof of a collective conscious the PEAR research right before 911 and through it. There was a huge spike.
I myself am a mathematician and a Physics Major.

The episode did not cite the process that they used to arrive at the spike. I found that incredibly suspicious.

: I do not doubt that magnetic fields could transfer electrical impulses from person to person but actual data or useable information from being to being would be incredibly unlikely.


yes, that is where i got it from. i was left feeling that i didn't know enough about it, which is why i posted here.

i agree with that last statement. but i tnink in enough time and technological advances, we can probably find a way to track our electromagnetic pulses and whatnot.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 10:50:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 5:35:09 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/23/2011 2:30:31 PM, Tiel wrote:
As more and more serious scientific research and experiments are done towards certain currently unaccepted concepts, the more the scientific community will have the data they need to start the paradigm shift.

Yes, there is a collective consciousness. Though you will hear people with a certain bias against such concepts say that it is all nonsense or a hoax. That's all they ever have to say when evidence in support of such things are presented. In the end, the joke will be on them and they will have to swallow their pride in acceptance.

How is it that you know there is a collective conscious, thus overthrowing the current scientific establishment, yet you refuse to say with any gumption that aliens interfered with human evolution?

You pick your battles oddly.

okay, you've piqued my curiosity. do you believe this? are you talking meteors or actual aliens coming to earth ? :)

and why would a collective conscious necessarily overthrow the "establishment"? can they not co exist? have we found everything? is it doubtful that there will be further scientific knowledge to find that could make the collective conscious fit into our understanding of universal laws? does our current logic always prevail or do we find out that those "indiscernible miracles" (ie the sun and moon moving around the sky, the effect of gravity, the fact that our atoms are constantly moving and vibrating, etc.) are actually products of everyday existence?
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 5:11:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 10:50:54 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 9/23/2011 5:35:09 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/23/2011 2:30:31 PM, Tiel wrote:
As more and more serious scientific research and experiments are done towards certain currently unaccepted concepts, the more the scientific community will have the data they need to start the paradigm shift.

Yes, there is a collective consciousness. Though you will hear people with a certain bias against such concepts say that it is all nonsense or a hoax. That's all they ever have to say when evidence in support of such things are presented. In the end, the joke will be on them and they will have to swallow their pride in acceptance.

How is it that you know there is a collective conscious, thus overthrowing the current scientific establishment, yet you refuse to say with any gumption that aliens interfered with human evolution?

You pick your battles oddly.

okay, you've piqued my curiosity. do you believe this? are you talking meteors or actual aliens coming to earth ? :)

Yes, I do believe this. There is much evidence to support this actually and it is the very reasons why I find the theory convincing. I can give you some references to books that you can read which give evidence in support of various subjects which are currently not accepted by the mainstream scientific community, including extraterrestrials being involved with human affairs.

and why would a collective conscious necessarily overthrow the "establishment"? can they not co exist? have we found everything? is it doubtful that there will be further scientific knowledge to find that could make the collective conscious fit into our understanding of universal laws? does our current logic always prevail or do we find out that those "indiscernible miracles" (ie the sun and moon moving around the sky, the effect of gravity, the fact that our atoms are constantly moving and vibrating, etc.) are actually products of everyday existence?

You are wise to not rule out such things. Bravo. It's people like you that will pave the path of the new era... The "Era of Awakening" (as I call it) when science and spirituality start to overlap, creating a fusion of spirit and intellect which will fuel a redesign of human civilization in general. The "age of Information" will spawn a generation who thinks, creates, and lives in a realm of intellectual and spiritual possibility. I'm glad that I will probably be alive to see this change and possibly be a leader in it.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 3:52:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 5:11:44 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/25/2011 10:50:54 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 9/23/2011 5:35:09 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/23/2011 2:30:31 PM, Tiel wrote:
As more and more serious scientific research and experiments are done towards certain currently unaccepted concepts, the more the scientific community will have the data they need to start the paradigm shift.

Yes, there is a collective consciousness. Though you will hear people with a certain bias against such concepts say that it is all nonsense or a hoax. That's all they ever have to say when evidence in support of such things are presented. In the end, the joke will be on them and they will have to swallow their pride in acceptance.

How is it that you know there is a collective conscious, thus overthrowing the current scientific establishment, yet you refuse to say with any gumption that aliens interfered with human evolution?

You pick your battles oddly.

okay, you've piqued my curiosity. do you believe this? are you talking meteors or actual aliens coming to earth ? :)

Yes, I do believe this. There is much evidence to support this actually and it is the very reasons why I find the theory convincing. I can give you some references to books that you can read which give evidence in support of various subjects which are currently not accepted by the mainstream scientific community, including extraterrestrials being involved with human affairs.

So, every time I've ever asked you for evidence to support your theory, you were just toying with me? Because you've never shown me anything past a single book which claims there are homonid fossils dated 280 million years ago.

What are your sources?

How could the theory be falsified? And it is NOT a scientific theory if it is not falsifiable.

I'll repeat myself, you cannot say you propose a scientific theory is there is no possible evidence that could be uncovered which would falsify your theory.

I find it amazing that here, of all places, you admit that you have evidence you'd be willing to show.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 8:42:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 3:52:38 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/26/2011 5:11:44 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/25/2011 10:50:54 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 9/23/2011 5:35:09 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/23/2011 2:30:31 PM, Tiel wrote:
As more and more serious scientific research and experiments are done towards certain currently unaccepted concepts, the more the scientific community will have the data they need to start the paradigm shift.

Yes, there is a collective consciousness. Though you will hear people with a certain bias against such concepts say that it is all nonsense or a hoax. That's all they ever have to say when evidence in support of such things are presented. In the end, the joke will be on them and they will have to swallow their pride in acceptance.

How is it that you know there is a collective conscious, thus overthrowing the current scientific establishment, yet you refuse to say with any gumption that aliens interfered with human evolution?

You pick your battles oddly.

okay, you've piqued my curiosity. do you believe this? are you talking meteors or actual aliens coming to earth ? :)

Yes, I do believe this. There is much evidence to support this actually and it is the very reasons why I find the theory convincing. I can give you some references to books that you can read which give evidence in support of various subjects which are currently not accepted by the mainstream scientific community, including extraterrestrials being involved with human affairs.

So, every time I've ever asked you for evidence to support your theory, you were just toying with me? Because you've never shown me anything past a single book which claims there are homonid fossils dated 280 million years ago.

What are your sources?

How could the theory be falsified? And it is NOT a scientific theory if it is not falsifiable.

I'll repeat myself, you cannot say you propose a scientific theory is there is no possible evidence that could be uncovered which would falsify your theory.

I find it amazing that here, of all places, you admit that you have evidence you'd be willing to show.

Wnope... You are a funny character. You would find a way to bash any evidence that supports concepts that you don't believe in. The point is senseless. I would rather use my time on people that are actually open and interested to alternative possibilities. If you don't know what evidence is out there, then you don't research concepts nearly as much as you say you do.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."